NEW! By Barry Rubin

“There have been many hundreds of books for and against Israel but no volume presenting the essential information about its domestic politics, its society, as well as its cultural life and its economy. This gap has now been filled.”—Walter Laqueur, author of A History of Zionism

"[An] essential resource for readers interested in learning the truth about the Zionist project in the 20th and 21st centuries."—Sol Stern, Commentary

“Offering in-depth perspectives with encyclopedic breadth on the makeup of the Jewish state, focusing only briefly on Israel's struggle for self-preservation. The section "History" provides a masterful summary of Israel's past from its socialist beginnings before independence to the modern struggles with the Iranian regime. . . .”—Publishers Weekly

“A well-written portrait of a vibrant nation at the center of turmoil in the region.”—Jay Freeman, Booklist

"It is indeed just a starting point, but Israel: An Introduction, if disseminated among our universities to the extent it deserves, will at least allow students of the Middle East and of Jewish history to start off on the right foot. A glimpse into the real Israel may do more for the future of U.S.-Israeli relations than any amount of rhetoric ever could."—Daniel Perez, Jewish Voice New York

Written by a leading historian of the Middle East, Israel is organized around six major themes: land and people, history, society, politics, economics, and culture. The only available volume to offer such a complete account, this book is written for general readers and students who may have little background knowledge of this nation or its rich culture.

About Me

Barry Rubin was founder of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center--now the Rubin Center--and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.rubincenter.org.

Recent Rubin Reports

Friday, May 31, 2013

I was interviewed by Radikal, possibly the best Turkish newspaper today.

What is your assessment of the current state of relations between Turkey and Israel?

Relations will remain bad because Prime Minister Erdogan wants it to be that way. No matter what Israel does—as we have just seen—he will find excuses to do so.

Are relations as tense as they seem or both parties play the tough guy before the cameras whereas they enjoy better relations behind the scenes?

Relations are as tense as they seem because Israel DID compromise before the cameras and Erdogan—for domestic reasons—is still playing tough guy both in public and behind the scenes.

--Have you followed Prime Minister Erdogan’s recent visit to the US? Does it seem to you that Erdogan has been convinced by President Obama and will adopt a more multilateralist and moderate stance on Syria?

I’m not sure what this question means. If Obama becomes more multilateralist that means he will go to the UN and Russia will veto any action. So being more multilateralist means nothing will happen and that’s not what Erdogan wants.

As for “moderate” what does that mean? Does Erdogan want to give less aid and support to the rebels? I don’t think so.

While Turkish officials were having talks with their American counterparts, the CIA Chief John Brennan has visited Israel. Is there any connection between these two visits? Could we say that Turkey, Israel and the US have already or may in the near future start coordinating their efforts towards Syria?

They have already been coordinating their efforts but because of Israeli interests in not taking either side in the civil war that doesn’t mean a huge amount. The coordination has been mainly over sharing assessments and Israeli attacks to ensure that the Syrian regime’s advanced weapons do not get sent to Hizballah in Lebanon.

What is the current Israeli policy on Syria?

Neutrality. Defending itself against the transfer to Lebanon of advanced arms by the Syrian government. Israel will 100 percent definitely not get involved in the war on either side.

Do the developments in Syria bring Turkey and Israel closer or take them further apart?

Israel and Turkey share a common interest in that they do not want al-Qaida to take over Syria. It is not clear whether they agree on the radical Salafists not taking power. They both do not want to see a wider area destabilized. But Erdogan wants the Muslim Brotherhood to win and perhaps doesn’t care about the Salafists winning also. Israel simply doesn’t want to be attacked from Syria by the regime or the rebels. The answer is it should bring them closer together but Erdogan doesn’t want that and has announced he won’t even consult with Israel on Syria. As far as I can see that statement is true.

Turkey, though, is in great danger for not only is it involved in a proxy war with Iran, which supports the regime, but also now with Russia which is escalating its support for the regime. The Turkish government’s “no enemies” policy is clearly gone since it has now made three major enemies by its own choice: Iran, Israel, and Russia, to which could be added Hizballah, a group that Erdogan courted.

But there is more than that regarding the problems for Turkey. What few people recognize is that the “Arab Spring” means the end of the regime’s regional ambitions. Whatever people think within Turkey the Sunni Islamists, and especially the Muslim Brotherhood, don’t want Turkish influence because Turks are not Arabs. In addition they think they don’t need Turkey anymore. True, Erdogan became briefly popular in the Arab world when they didn’t have anyone else to turn to but now they have their own new revolutions. Do you really think that a radical Islamist government in Syria will be friendly toward Turkey? And now, remarkably, the Turkish government has helped install a PKK regime on its border in northeastern Syria!

This policy is not working very well.

Do you think Israel and Turkey may have started coordinating their efforts on Syria?

Definitely not.

If Israel suspects that Hezbollah received advanced weapons from Syria, will it intervene into Lebanon again?

Definitely yes.

Is there any solution to the Syrian quagmire in the near future?

No. There is no real diplomatic solution. People can hold conferences and give speeches but the only way this will be settled is by one side’s victory over the other and that is not likely to happen in less than two years and perhaps not even then.

Is it coincidence that the Israeli air attacks on Syria and the Israeli apology to Turkey have overlapped during the first half of this year?

Yes it is a coincidence.

Why do you think Israel apologized from Turkey?

Because President Obama asked it to do so; because Israel’s action was what the Turkish government had been offered by it for two years, because Israel wants good relations with Turkey. And finally because Israel didn't apologize--despite the media spin--but expressed regrtet and made a deal on the basis of the same terms it had been offering the Turkish government for about two years.

Do the Israeli decision-makers trust Erdogan and Davutoglu?

No, especially now after the rejection of attempted conciliation.

There were reports in the Turkish media some time ago that Israeli intelligence officials were uneasy with the appointment of Hakan Fidan to the post of the head of Turkish intelligence agency, MIT, as they feared that Fidan may be too close to some anti-Israeli players in the region. Is there any truth in these speculations?

What’s important is Turkish government policy, not personnel. With the current government in Ankara’s policy, it doesn’t matter who the officials are.

What does the Israeli government think about Erdogan’s visit to Palestine?

Actually, remember this. If Erdogan was going to the West Bank to visit the Palestinian Authority nobody would be annoyed. Israel would probably be pleased. But he has never supported the Palestinian Authority because he has backed Islamist Hamas. The Palestinian Authority is as angry as Israel is and has said so publicly. Instead of backing Palestine, Erdogan is helping a rebel area which openly seeks genocide against Jews and the destruction of Israel, a group that has also killed members of the ruling group in the Palestinian Authority, Fatah.

Does Israel want Turkey to reconcile Hamas and El Fatah?

I don’t think that’s what he is doing. He is supporting Hamas against Fatah and everyone in Fatah knows it.

Last week Sunday Times published some remarks of an unnamed Israeli official who said that Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia were forming a Sunni block in the Middle East and Israel would actually like to be a part of this partnership. What do think about such scenarios?

Never believe anything that appears in the Sunday Times. I’m not joking as it has a record of making stuff up and all their `scoops' never materialize. Obviously, Israel will not be part of this partnership. Inasmuch as Israel views Iran as its main enemy, defeats for Iran by a Sunni bloc are viewed as positive. But Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are not delivering a moderate government in Syria but a revolutionary Islamist one. They may all mourn the day they made that error. They could have supported more moderate forces, got rid of Bashar al-Assad, and enjoyed far more Western help in doing so.

Put simply, who are the friends of Israel in the region and who are the foes?

Israel would like to have Turkey as a friend, as happened for many years. The foes are Iran, the current Lebanese government (led by Syrian puppets and Hizballah) and the current Syrian government, as well as Hamas. The potential foes are the Muslim Brotherhood regimes—Egypt, Tunisia, and a rebel-ruled Syria. The rest are neither. Even Egypt has been cautious in practice despite its harsh rhetoric. Any Arab factor that wants to can become a neutral party simply by not attacking Israel.

What are the chances for Israel to strike Iran in the near future? If Israel activates such a scenario what role would it expect Turkey to play?

No and no.

Do you think there will be any changes after the elections in Iran?

No because even if the rhetoric is cooler the regime will be controlled by the same faction, that of Supreme Guide Khamenei, and it will continue efforts to achieve nuclear weapons.

When government officials talk about the present process with the PKK, they keep emphasizing that if Turkey reconciles with her Kurds she will become greater. Some suspect that these statements refer to quasi-irredentist motivations. How do you read such statements?

I understand that this is a difficult issue to solve and it is an internal Turkish matter.

--Would Israel support the creation of an independent Kurdistan? There are many conspiracy theories in Turkey around this question. Many people believe that Israel would support such a Kurdish state as it would be yet another actor against Iran.

Well, it isn’t true. I don’t think even the Kurds aim at an independent Kurdistan. In Iraq and Syria they have the benefits of independence without stirring massive Turkish and Iranian opposition. Turkey is getting along well with the Iraqi Kurds. Why should the Kurds take such a tremendous risk? I think they understand the situation. I know there are many conspiracy theories but they aren’t true. Remember this: In a previous term of office, Prime Minister Netanyahu declared the PKK a terrorist group at Turkey’s request! This involved a real risk of Israel—that the PKK might launch terrorist attacks against it—and some loss of potential freedom of action. It might be good to remember such cooperation, including cooperation against Armenian terrorism, mutual economic benefits of the bilateral relationship, and aid during the earthquake.

Israel is not Turkey's enemy though, regrettably, Islamist Turkish politicians are Israel's enemies, and perhaps a democratic and free Turkey's enemy as well.

While Tunisia is being run by a coalition of the Muslim Brotherhood and two secular parties, the Brotherhood’s power is growing while Salafist groups are free to intimidate people. The most vocal opposition leader, Chokri Belaid, was assassinated with indications that this killing was backed, even organized, by the ruling Islamists.

President Moncef Marzouki is being described as weak in the face of this Brotherhood takeover. A former human rights’ advocate, he is backing down to the Brotherhood’s al-Nahda Party, which is the largest party in the government. He has called the opposition “secular extremists” who are seeking to stage a coup but never criticizes the violent Salafists.

Note that claiming the opposition seeks to seize power by force authorizes “regime defenders” to attack them by force. In fact, Marzouki threatened that opposition members who were trying to overthrow the government would be hung.

He has threatened anyone criticizing Qatar—al-Nahda’s financier—with prison. Unlike other Arab countries, however, the moderate democratic opposition is well organized and has not been intimidated. Not yet anyway.

Then, on March 31, 2013, Marzouki’s own party, the National Council of the Congress for the Republic, appointed the president’s chief of staff Imed Daimi as secretary-general. He was soon forced to resign, however, when it was pointed out that it was strange to have a “center-left” and “secular” party led by a man with a long record of having been an Islamist militant. He was also a featured speaker at the Turkish Islamist front group, Union of the Good, which has connections with terrorist groups.

Whatever Daimi’s current views, the idea that the president’s party, and one of the governing coalition’s two “liberal” members, would have been headed by an Islamist fellow traveler stirred up strong objections.

Like the Communists historically, Islamist groups have been adept at creating front groups, fellow travelers, and massive disinformation campaigns, including creating the “Islamophobia” theme in the West.

Meanwhile, the main Salafist group in Tunisia, the Ansar al-Sharia, which has periodically engaged in low-level violence, has now threatened to launch a war of terrorism against the ruling party, which it says is only pretending to be Islamist. Here's a MEMRI report on this threat. And here's an example of the kind of riot that results.

One columnist in the Guardian is critical of the Muslim Brotherhood ruling party in Tunisia. Why? Because it is moving in an anti-democratic direction? No, because it isn't working hard enough to integrate the "moderate" Salifists. Note this new invention following that of the "moderate" Islamists and ""moderate"" Muslim Brotherhood.

Meanwhile, to show the gratitude of Tunisia for the Obama Administration's help to its turnover of power to the Brotherhood, twenty people were sentenced for an attack on the U.S. embassy in which four assailants were killed and many wounded last September. They received a two-year suspended sentence. And Tunisia is the only Arab country where an eternal refusal to accept Israel, even if Israel and the Palestinians agree on a two-state solution, is written into the Constitution.

At any rate, things do not look good for Tunisia. And if Tunisia can’t make a real, non-Islamist democracy, there is scant hope for Egypt, Syria, or any other Arab state to do so.

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Way back in 1979, shortly after the Iranian revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini said that people in the West didn't understand revolutionary Islamism. "They think," he explained, "the revolution is all about the price of watermelons. It isn't." In other words, this is an ideological cause not a money-making attempt where people can be bribed.

Three Examples:

1. The Palestinian Case

On May 26, at the World Economic Forum in Jordan, Secretary of State John Kerry proclaimed a new plan. He wants to find $4 billion from investors. If he does this, he claims, the Palestinian economy will be doing great, people will be employed, and there will be peace.

Actually, this is a bribe to get the Palestinian Authority back to negotiations with Israel which would also mean, of course, that the Obama Administration can claim a foreign policy success. That's $4 billion to buy a negotiations' process that will meet a few times and break down in deadlock, as has happened over 20 years under far better potential conditions and additional billions of dollars of aid to the Palestinians. The initiative is also intended to get the Palestinian Authority to drop plans to seek statehood at the UN; file cases against Israel at the World Court; and to try to join other international institutions as an independent state.

What should the money be spent on according to Kerry? Why on tourism! No doubt tourists are just lining up to go to the West Bank (they certainly aren’t going to go to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip where the rockets' red glare has a different meaning).

Notice incidentally that these are not productive investments. Perhaps he could have proposed investment in green energy. After all, the West Bank has much better prospects for solar power than does the United States.

The supposed uses to which the money would be put further signals that this is a political bribe. If this money is found Kerry said the result would be to:

“Increase the Palestinian GDP by as much as 50% over three years…and reduce unemployment by two-thirds…and increase the median wage by 40%.”

Should the secretary of state be talking on such a level of fantasy? Does a single one of his listeners believe this?

Tony Blair, to whom the tourism project was turned over by Kerry, has been the negotiator for the quartet for 11 years. Guess how many visits he has made to Jerusalem? Answer: 87. And basically he's accomplished zero. Here is the short list of achievements that he even dares claim after 11 years, 87 trips, and vast amounts of money.

Kerry stated:

“Experts believe that we can increase the Palestinian GDP by as much as 50% over three years. Their most optimistic estimates foresee enough new jobs to cut unemployment by nearly two-thirds - to 8%, down from 21% today - and to increase the median annual wage along with it, by as much as 40%...."

How about their more pessimistic estimates or even their realistic ones? Kerry has chosen the worst possible plan, investment in an industry that is incredibly sensitive to political unrest.

Are Palestinians going to become hotel managers, waiters, lifeguards at swimming pools, and so on?

What will Hamas think about the influx of massive numbers of Western tourists?

The sale of alcohol?

Western women coming in wearing whatever they want?

What would happen to this investment if there was a single terrorist attack in the West Bank, much less one against tourists?

Might events in nearby Egypt and Syria affect Western tourism?

And while Israel is successful at tourism it is a developed country with far more to see. Remember east Jerusalem—the main tourist attraction—is controlled by Israel, not the Palestinian Authority. Once you get beyond Bethlehem which tourists can visit easily while spending a night in an Israeli hotel—what’s there to do in the West Bank?

Is this a good idea for a $4 billion investment?

Kerry continued:

"The economics will never work properly or fully without the political process....President Abbas, the economic approach is not a substitute for the political approach. The political approach is essential and it is our top priority. In fact, none of this vision...will happen without the context of the two-state solution."

Question: If billions of dollars have not bought PA support for a two-state solution in 20 years why should anything change now?

Predictably, the PA reaction was that Israel would have to give still more concessions before it would do Israel and the United States the favor of returning to negotiations so that it could obtain a state, even though it is so weak that these two have to prop it up and it only controls half the territory it is bargaining for. No matter how much time and money Kerry takes to restart the "peace process" nothing is going to happen. It is remarkable that the West still doesn't understand this. Or perhaps it does and is putting in all this effort for show?

2. Syria, the Bashar al-Assad Regime

For two years, during the first half of the Obama Administration, the United States tried to buy Syria out of its alliance with Iran by dangling trade and other financial inducements. We were assured that the Syrians would eagerly "sell out." But of course this never happened.

3. Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood

After the civil war began, when the United States tried to isolate the Syrian branch of al-Qaida (Jabhat al-Nusra) in December 2012 by designating it as a terrorist group, even the Free Syrian Army, supposedly the moderates, denounced the move as did more than 30 Syrian Salafist rebel groups. This was despite the offers of weapons and money. U.S. officials dealing with the Islamist rebel groups knew that they could not get them to do anything the United States wanted. Nevertheless, at the recent meeting of the Syrian opposition, the State Department spokesman explained:

“We have recognized the coalition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, and we will work with Prime Minister Hitto. Our assistance will be channeled in large part through him and his team into these towns in liberated parts of Syria.”

Translation: One among several opposition groups--the one controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood--is recognized by the United States as the legitimate representative (even though many groups are boycotting it); the Muslim Brotherhood's guy is the "prime minister;" and the U.S. government intends to disburse a total of $1 billion raised internationally through the Muslim Brotherhood. How much patronage will that buy for the Brotherhood?

Kerry also announced that $250 million in U.S. taxpayer money is going to go directly to a group directed by the Muslim Brotherhood to spend as it wishes, presumably to go mainly to local Brotherhood groups and militias.

But what was the Brotherhood-dominated in the so-called National Coalition which is the U.S. recognized opposition group doing at the same time? Answer: refusing to broaden its membership. Even proposals that the Brotherhood be left with two-thirds of the seats were ultimately rejected by the Brotherhood. And who were the proposed new members? Michel Kilo and his allies, courageous moderates who the West should have been supporting all along!

After playing games on adding these people the Brotherhood leadership turned it down. Kilo's moderate group by the way was not the one recognized by the United States as the "legitimate representative of the Syrian people." The National Coalition also leaves out the Kurds whose leadership is secular and, except for tokens, the Alawites, Druze, and Christians, too. It basically represents the roughly 25 or 30 percent who support the various Islamist rebel groups.

They also came up with a new scheme to empower the Brotherhood's local councils within Syria as a basis for an internal opposition government that would disburse any funds. The situation is not good in rebel-controlled Syria as there is no source of money. Would the West raise funds that would be handed out by the Muslim Brotherhood to its supporters?

Turkey and Qatar, supposed U.S. partners, are doing everything possible to support the Brotherhood. Even the Saudis now see through these schemes and reportedly realize that their helping the Salafists is suicidal to their interests.

Why is it that the "official" Syrian opposition group refuses to broaden its base to non-Islamists but still gets U.S. support? Isn't money and weaponry supposed to provide U.S. leverage?

Meanwhile, President Obama stated recently that the United States has spent $1 trillion--a considerable part of the deficit--on anti-terrorism measures.

For detailed accounts by two reliable observers of the Syrian scene see here and here.

Note: My colleague, Dr. Jonathan Spyer, was on a BBC show with a British Conservative member of parliament who insisted that Syria was a secular country and that none of the rebels were Islamists. This is the level of ignorance among many politicians and others in the West.

If you are interested in reading more about Syria, you're welcome to read my book The Truth About Syria online or download it for free.

For a discussion of what I think U.S. policy toward terrorism and Islamism should be, see here.

We’d
love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13
free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not
make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal:click here.

Barry Rubin is director of the
Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the
Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His next book, Nazis, Islamists and the
Making of the Modern Middle East, written with Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, will be
published by Yale University Press in January 2014. His latest book is Israel: An Introduction, also published
by Yale. Thirteen
of his books can be read and downloaded for free at thewebsite of
the GLORIA Center includingThe Arab States and the Palestine
Conflict, The
Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East andThe Truth About Syria. His blog is Rubin
Reports. His original
articles are published at PJMedia.

If one wanted a slogan for the Obama Administration regarding the "war on terrorism" it would be:

To win the war on terrorism one must lose the war on revolutionary Islamism.

because only by showing that America is the Islamists' friend will it take away the incentive of Muslims, including radical Muslims, to join al-Qaida and attack the United States.

This is NOT the same thing precisely as showing that the United States is the Muslims' friend. For, after all, the United States is taking sides for some Muslims and against others. And the side it is taking is that of the Islamist Muslims against the moderate, traditionalist, and nationalist ones.

In other words, the administration is largely assuming in practice that the Islamists are the proper representative and leadership of the Muslims. (That is also true, by the way, of domestic preferences.)

Thus, if the Muslim Brotherhood governs Egypt, Tunisia, the Gaza Strip, and Syria, they would have what they wanted and there would be no need for them to attack America and would have every interest in suppressing al-Qaida.

Ironically, though, the Benghazi attack disproved this thesis, which was one of the reasons why the information about it had to be suppressed. The United States "proved" that it was the friend of Islamist rebels, helping them win the war and get rid of the oppressive dictatorship, but they still were ungrateful and attacked Americans. The same thing happened in Iraq where the Sunni Islamists objected to U.S. policy.

It is true that in Syria, Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist radical Islamists are not the same as al-Qaida and might oppose it. But they are not necessarily hostile to its ideas. When the United States tried to isolate the Syrian branch of al-Qaida (Jabhat al-Nusra) in December 2012 by designating it as a terrorist group, even the Free Syrian Army, supposedly the moderates, denounced the move as did more than 30 Syrian Salafist rebel groups. How would these groups choose sides between the al-Qaida affiliate and the United States?

What would the policy of an Islamist Syria be toward the United States and its interests? While there is no reason to believe the Muslim Brothers or Salafists would attack the World Trade Center, they can be expected to attack U.S. diplomats, facilities, and citizens in Syria and to help Salafists stage revolutions elsewhere that would do the same thing.

At the recent meeting of the Syrian opposition, the State Department spokesman explained:

“We have recognized the coalition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, and we will work with Prime Minister Hitto. Our assistance will be channeled in large part through him and his team into these towns in liberated parts of Syria.”

Translation: One among several opposition groups--the one controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood--is recognized by the United States as the legitimate representative (even though many groups are boycotting it); the Muslim Brotherhood's guy is the "prime minister;" and the U.S. government intends to disburse a total of $1 billion raised internationally through the Muslim Brotherhood. How much patronage will that buy for the Brotherhood?

Kerry also announced that $250 million in U.S. taxpayer money is going to go directly to a group directed by the Muslim Brotherhood to spend as it wishes. Presumably most of that money will go to local Brotherhood groups and militias.

“We have not recognized it [the opposition grouping] as the Syrian government. We have recognized the coalition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, and we will work with Prime Minister Hitto. Our assistance will be channeled in large part

through him and his team into these towns in liberated parts of Syria.”

Translation: One among several opposition groups--the one controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood--is recognized by the United States as the legitimate representative (even though many groups are boycotting it); the Muslim Brotherhood's guy is the "prime minister;" and the U.S. government intends to disburse $1 billion raised internationally through the Muslim Brotherhood. How much patronage will that buy for the Brotherhood?

Actually, there was a much better way for the Obama Administration to have explained the Benghazi attack. It could have said that of course the attack was from al-Qaida but that was because the United States was doing a good thing-- helping put into power a non- Islamist, democratic, moderate government. That is how other presidents--as with George W. Bush in Iraq--would have managed this issue.

Listen to Obama's words in his Fort McNair speech:

"What's clear is that we quickly drove al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, but then shifted our focus and began a new war in Iraq. This carried grave consequences for our fight against al-Qaida, our standing in the world, and–to this day–our interests in a vital region."

Suppose one substituted the words "Libya" or "Syria" for the word Iraq? After all, Bush's surge defeated al-Qaida, though of course not completely, but in Syria al-Qaida is stronger than ever at this point, and in Libya it also murdered Americans.

And such a stance by Obama would also have required admitting that from the Libyan (and potentially Syrian) Islamist viewpoint the help given them wasn't enough, that it resulted in Libya in an American "puppet" regime.

And that approach would have forced the Obama Administration to open itself up to the same criticism it keeps making against Bush in Iraq: that U.S. intervention strengthened terrorists.

Obama Premise Number Two:

Think about the Benghazi attack in this context.

Real cause of attack: The Americans helped Islamists gain power so they could operate freely in Banghazi, a city where al-Qaida patrols the city and controls territory today. Thus, the mistake was that the U.S. government was too pro-Islamist.

Phony cause of attack: The Americans weren't pro-Islam enough, i.e., they had this nasty video that offended Muslims.

In other words, the attack's cause was reversed, it was made to seem as if it was the exact opposite of the truth.

Over and over again American presidents have said--as did Obama in the Fort McNair speech--that America is not at war with Islam.

But, Obama continued, the ideology America is fighting is based only on the mistaken belief that America is at war with Islam, which means the problem is not that Islamists should have good reason to believe that the United States does oppose their establishing anti-American, authoritarian dictatorships.

No matter how much the United States does to help revolutionary Islamists--like putting them into power in Syria--they will still hate and fight against America.

Obama Premise Number Four:

Most of those killed by Islamist terrorists are Muslims. Therefore, Muslims aren't really responsible.

Response: Yes but first, that's why many Muslims--the victims--want to fight against Islamists taking over their societies. Muslim terrorists kill Muslims because those Muslims don't support those Muslim terrorists.

Obama policy: All Muslims are good except for a very tiny minority.

Proper statement: There are bad Muslims and good Muslims. The United States wants to help the good Muslims against the bad Muslims. The bad Muslims want to impose bloodthirsty dictatorships, hate America, chase out Christians, and suppress women even more than they are already.

In addition, the second largest group being killed by Islamist terrorists are non-Muslims. There's a war going on.

BUT From the Islamist standpoint:

The killer if a British soldier in London quoted the Koran, yelled Allahu Akhbar and said: The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers.

--If an Islamist kills a Muslim who opposes him or even a bystander Muslim that's ok.

--If a British soldier in Afghanistan saves a Muslim from being killed by Islamist Muslims that's bad and worthy of "Islamic" revenge.

In other words, ideological Islamists will interpret anything but surrender to their violence as hostility to Islam.

Anti-Islamist Muslims interpret helping them against Islamist authoritarians as helping the proper version of Islam.

The real situation is a war among Muslims--just as World War Two was a war among European Christians and a war among Asians--in which the United States knew what side it should be on.

Obama Premise Number Five:

Never talk about the war on revolutionary Islamism or, more accurately, revolutionary Islamism's war on the West.

Well, most of those killed by the Nazis up to late 1939 were German. Did this mean we had to talk all the time about how we liked Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, hamburgers, and other great achievements of German culture?

The problem is the political movements involved and the radical governments making such a big security threat for the United States. Not just the safety of Americans in the homeland but U.S. national interests (remember them?)

Obama Premise Number Six:

Why did Obama say that the heckler at his speech, leftist loony Medea Benjamin, was "worth paying attention to?" Because she was shouting that the existence of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp or the use of drones made Americans less safe at home. That is what he considers regrettable, even if he has to do things to the contrary sometimes, because he knows that America's defending itself is partly counter-productive. After all:

Fighting Islamist terrorism encourages more Islamist terrorism.

It is better to let other Islamists suppress it because non-Islamists backed by the United States would be called American puppets. By this standard, having for example President Husni Mubarak in power in Egypt endangers Americans and so does supporting moderate rebels in Syria or being too close to Israel or complaining about Turkish policy by that Islamist regime.

Supporting Muslim relative moderates makes Muslim terrorists angry and furnishes cause for terrorist attacks. Obama wants to remove--as in so many other things--what he believes to be the root cause of the grievance.

Consider this concept: America is not at war with Islam but who might think otherwise and respond with violence? Radical Muslims. So the problem is not, in Obama's eyes, to prove that America is not at war with Islam but that it is not at war with radical Muslims. It is in fact not the enemy of radical Muslims but rather the friend of radical Muslims.

As a result, radical Muslims become more successful, gain power, rule over millions of people and become more radical. Muslims might believe that their successes show that radical Islam is the winning team or you might just be afraid of them and want to get along. Either way, revolutionary Islamism is getting more and more powerful in the region. Obama is the biggest disaster of all for non-radical Muslims, whether genuine liberals or conservative monarchies.

Obama Premise Number Seven:

If terrorism is merely local and spontaneous it doesn't count as much. Actually, however, it should count more.

Why?

Because it shows that al-Qaida's influence is widening, even to places in the West.

Because it is harder to counter through intelligence and other measures since there are scores of smaller attacks and plots that are more invisible because of smaller numbers and less organization.

Because time after time we see that terrorism happens because openly radical mosques and other groups plant the dynamite in the minds of young people but since they are not actually engaged in direct terrorism nothing is--can be?--done about it even when we know these mentors want terrorist acts to result. Here's a case study of the London murder and the same was true in the Boston attack. Perhaps Obama might consider branding some places and people terrorism incubators.

Thus, within hours of Obama's speech:

--A British soldier was ruthlessly murdered on a London street as a result of an extremely radical mosque and preachers operating freely to advocate violence along with an apparent conspiracy by a group of terrorists. Rather than be holed up in Afghan caves, al-Qaida terrorists stalk London streets.

And British soldiers have been told not to wear uniforms openly. That means the British army is afraid of al-Qaida in the streets of London.

Within the United States, a couple of young men with perhaps some terrorist training and in touch with al-Qaida cadre murdered people in the streets of Boston and terrorized the whole city. They committed murders and apparently had a support network of friends willing to help them.

And even as Obama called the Fort Hood massacre an act conducted under the influence of international terrorism, his Defense Department found that this was an individual act, ignoring that the murders were recommended by an al-Qaida cleric in Yemen.

So when al-Qaida, Obama says, is cowering in the caves of Afghanistan, it is also recruiting on the computer screens of America, Britain, and France, among many other places.

"Al-Qaida's former attacks were high-quality and were carried out be elite squads of fighters, [but these fighters] did not represent broad sectors of Arab society. The wars currently being waged in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, on the other hand, are frightening because they rely on [entire] social [sectors] that support [the fighters] and shelter them." That same point applies equally to the West in that individuals or small spontaneous groups are more dangerous than small groups of elite squads.

Who's actually winning the war on terror in the Middle East and the West?

And who's winning the struggle between revolutionary Islamism and the West?

For a discussion of what I think U.S. policy toward terrorism and Islamism should be, see here.

We’d love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13 free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal:click here.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His next book, Nazis, Islamists and the Making of the Modern Middle East, written with Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, will be published by Yale University Press in January 2014. His latest book is Israel: An Introduction, also published by Yale. Thirteen of his books can be read and downloaded for free at the website of the GLORIA Center including The Arab States and the Palestine Conflict, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East and The Truth About Syria. His blog is Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.